Slater offers very little valuable cricket insight, and he actually played cricket at a high level. Don't hold out much hope for him as a footy analyst, but then again they talk next to no footy on the footy show anyway so maybe 9 know what they're doing.

"The PFA does not represent players when they have broken the law and been convicted on non-football matters."- Gordon Taylor in 2009 following Marlon King's release after a prison sentence for sexual assault & ABH

Is it played in a format where you get points for tackles, try "assists" etc?

Pretty much. They've done extensive changes to the scoring system over the last year. In the past the scoring has favored defensive workhorses and goalkickers (Corey Parker was amazing). This year the bonuses for big attacking plays (scoring tries, line breaks, tackle busts etc) are larger, while penalties for mistakes (knock ons, missed or innefective tackles etc) are also larger. The idea being that you can look for more in a winger than just if he's a good goal kicker.

- Team 8 should never get a free shot at 1 in the first week of the finals, nor should 7 get a free shot at 2

- You can now watch every finals game knowing the consequences of a win or loss (under McIntyre, in the first week of the finals, you never knew what each game meant until the whole weekend was finished). ANd sometimes the 4 v 5 and 3 v 6 games meant essentially nil as on some occassions the winner and loser both had to play sudden death the next weekend.

I've been a supporter of McIntyre for a long time. Might as well have another go at explaining why.

Originally Posted by howardj

- Team 8 should never get a free shot at 1 in the first week of the finals, nor should 7 get a free shot at 2

You make it sound like team 8 would want a "free shot" at team 1 in the first round. There is absolutely nothing good about coming up against the top team away from home in a sudden death match. That is the absolute toughest task you could possibly ask for to ensure survival. Now 7-8 don't have to deal with that.

Originally Posted by howardj

- You can now watch every finals game knowing the consequences of a win or loss (under McIntyre, in the first week of the finals, you never knew what each game meant until the whole weekend was finished).

That's not a bad thing. I'll bet Warriors and Dragons fans couldn't take their eyes away from the remaining games, while Broncos and Tiger supporters would have been cheering the Knights and Cowboys every bit as hard as they cheer their own team. It adds another dimension to every contest.

You don't have to wait till the end of the week to know what's happening. The Dragons were safe when Manly beat Cowboys for example. Warriors fans still had to sweat, but if they wanted more security their team should have finished higher.

Originally Posted by howardj

ANd sometimes the 4 v 5 and 3 v 6 games meant essentially nil as on some occassions the winner and loser both had to play sudden death the next weekend.

And sometimes 4v5 becomes a contest for a week off. Sometimes they become sudden death games. What is clear about those positions is that you're always better placed the higher up you finish, and you're always rewarded for winning and punished for losing.

The question of whether it's a fair system or not depends on whether you define fair as all 8 teams having a better chance of making the final, or if you define it as your chance at making the final (and at surviving week 1) being directly proportional to your position on the ladder. The former is the AFL/ARL/New NRL system, the latter is McIntyre.

To illustrate you only need to look at the possible outcomes and weigh them against the risks in both scenarios. The big winners out of the change are positions 7-8, while the big losers are positions 1-2. There are pros and cons for teams 3-6 but for the most part the benefits for these positions are mixed. That's why it bothers me so much when I read the argument that this benefits the teams that performed better over the season. It is actually the exact opposite.

The only problems with McIntyre is that it theoretically set up less competetive matches in week 1 (offset by the fact that the NRL is structured to be more even) and that people didn't understand it. I truly believe that the second problem is the reason the system has been canned. People cbf actually thinking about something.

I've been a supporter of McIntyre for a long time. Might as well have another go at explaining why.

You make it sound like team 8 would want a "free shot" at team 1 in the first round. There is absolutely nothing good about coming up against the top team away from home in a sudden death match. That is the absolute toughest task you could possibly ask for to ensure survival. Now 7-8 don't have to deal with that.

That's not a bad thing. I'll bet Warriors and Dragons fans couldn't take their eyes away from the remaining games, while Broncos and Tiger supporters would have been cheering the Knights and Cowboys every bit as hard as they cheer their own team. It adds another dimension to every contest.

You don't have to wait till the end of the week to know what's happening. The Dragons were safe when Manly beat Cowboys for example. Warriors fans still had to sweat, but if they wanted more security their team should have finished higher.

And sometimes 4v5 becomes a contest for a week off. Sometimes they become sudden death games. What is clear about those positions is that you're always better placed the higher up you finish, and you're always rewarded for winning and punished for losing.

The question of whether it's a fair system or not depends on whether you define fair as all 8 teams having a better chance of making the final, or if you define it as your chance at making the final (and at surviving week 1) being directly proportional to your position on the ladder. The former is the AFL/ARL/New NRL system, the latter is McIntyre.

To illustrate you only need to look at the possible outcomes and weigh them against the risks in both scenarios. The big winners out of the change are positions 7-8, while the big losers are positions 1-2. There are pros and cons for teams 3-6 but for the most part the benefits for these positions are mixed. That's why it bothers me so much when I read the argument that this benefits the teams that performed better over the season. It is actually the exact opposite.

The only problems with McIntyre is that it theoretically set up less competetive matches in week 1 (offset by the fact that the NRL is structured to be more even) and that people didn't understand it. I truly believe that the second problem is the reason the system has been canned. People cbf actually thinking about something.

I think eight teams is at least two too many in a final series for a sixteen team comp, so I've always favoured the McIntyre system for that reason (well actually I favour a top five system - but if we must have a top eight..). If you're going to allow the farce that is seventh and eighth making the finals then you should at least make it exceptionally hard for them to progress; letting them build momentum slowly against lower ranked sides is terrible idea IMO.